Hi,
I recently re-ran most of the benchmarks after we changed the following:
A couple of things I changed recently on the shootout are:
1. I reran the various tests using higher 'N' values to force more work to be done.
2. I upgraded to the most recent GHC avaliable through Debian.
3. I don't recall which test was changed to its less-efficient counterpart, but as I recall this was due to some sniping that the lazy analysis was avoiding doing some of the work. After comparing the tests, we ended up agreeing and the Haskell implementation was modified.
Let me know if you have any updates or revisions you would like us to apply.
Thanks,
-Brent
----- Original Message ----
From: Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com>
To: Joel Reymont <joelr1 at gmail.com>
Cc: "haskell at haskell.org" <haskell at haskell.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:04:41 AM
Subject: RE: [Haskell] [Fwd: Re: Computer Language Shootout]
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell@haskell.org/msg18863.html
(It was Simon Marlow actually, but we are joined at the hip so it hardly matters)
| -----Original Message-----
| From: haskell-bounces at haskell.org [mailto:haskell-bounces at haskell.org] On Behalf Of Joel Reymont
| Sent: 25 January 2007 09:01
| To: Simon Marlow
| Cc: haskell at haskell.org| Subject: Re: [Haskell] [Fwd: Re: Computer Language Shootout]
|| Where are SPJs disclosed comments from Brent Fulgham?
|| On Jan 25, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
|| > Forwarding on behalf of Andrzej Jaworski <himself at poczta.nom.pl>:
| >
| > -------- Original Message --------
| > From: Andrzej Jaworski <himself at poczta.nom.pl>
| >
| > Dear fellows,
| >
| > It is ironic that just after SPJ disclosed Comments from Brent
| > Fulgham on
| > Haskell and the shootout the situation has radically changed for
| > the worse.
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell at haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell